Nothing seems to rile up the masses more than these two topics. As a result you can only talk about either in here. this forum will not be moderated, however if it gets really ugly you can report a post

AGENT-784 wrote:Humanity no longer has any reason to trust Capitalism, especially in light of the fact that the ruling class has resorted to Globalization as it's new cornerstone to wealth retention, poverty expansion, labour exploitation, and natural resource annihilation. How can Capitalism be trusted when the basis for it's existence is human greed, not human need. The ruling class does not create value in the absence of the working class. Why can the working class no longer retain a fair portion of the value which it creates ?

For the first time in the history of capitalism, technology has advanced to the point at which transnational corporations are able to pit workers in the rich, developed countries in a direct job-for-job wage competition with workers in poor, underdeveloped, low-wage countries on an ever-widening scale around the globe.

This cannot be considered a temporary phase that world capitalism and the working classes are passing through. It is the result of changes that are as profound as the Industrial Revolution and the age of imperialist/colonization. From 1985 to 2000 the so-called “active work force” available to world capitalism and imperialism doubled from 1.5 billion to 3 billion, an unprecedented event in the history of capitalism. Advantage...Ruling class.

This vast expansion of territory and low-wage labor newly available to the corporations coincided with the accelerated development of the scientific/technological revolution. The transnational corporations are using technology to restructure production and services so that they can scour the globe to find the cheapest labour. Under this new international division of labour, wages are being determined based upon international competition, thus pushing downward national wage standards in the rich countries.

Source : Fred Goldstein

Yes, I say we should be more like the Communist Chinese.....er, maybe not. I know, we need a Stalin or a Lenin.....er, maybe not. Perhaps we should be more like the Scandinavian countries - wait - they're broke as well. I know let's move to Iceland to escape all this doom and gloom........

Quote---Yes, I say we should be more like the Communist Chinese.....er, maybe not. I know, we need a Stalin or a Lenin.....er, maybe not. Perhaps we should be more like the Scandinavian countries - wait - they're broke as well. I know let's move to Iceland to escape all this doom and gloom........

Are people in favour of the Bailout, provided that it is never termed "Socialism for the Rich"...Do people believe that the original amount of 700 billion dollars is enough of a remedy...Are people braced for possibility that the true figure will extend to 3 trillion dollars and beyond...Do people believe that after this money is printed and distributed, the jobs, as we knew them, will all come back ?

Technology is the branch of knowledge which turns irreplaceable natural things into disposable dead things.

Quote---Yes, I say we should be more like the Communist Chinese.....er, maybe not. I know, we need a Stalin or a Lenin.....er, maybe not. Perhaps we should be more like the Scandinavian countries - wait - they're broke as well. I know let's move to Iceland to escape all this doom and gloom........

Is Communism the true antithesis of Capitalism ?

Vladimir Ilich Lenin---The son of a petty bureaucrat, spent most of his adult life in poverty, has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of your fellow human beings and the enslavement of nearly a billion more. Lenin sat up nights in a dark attic, scheming how he could conquer the world. Can anyone dispute this ?

Adolph Hitler---The terror and destruction that this madman inflicted upon the world are universally recognized. Hitler came from a poor family which had absolutely no social position. He was an alleged high school drop-out, and nobody ever accused him of being cultured. Yet this man tried to conquer the world. During his early career he sat in a cold attic and wrote his ambitions to rule the world. Can anyone dispute this ?

Is it not theoretically possible that an university educated billionaire could be sitting, not in an attic, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dream the same dream as Lenin and Hitler ? People will have to admit it is theoretically possible. Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man might form an alliance or association with other like-minded men, might he not ? Caesar did. These men would be superbly educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes. These are advantages that Hitler and Lenin did not have.

People must realize that there have been the Hitlers, the Lenins, the Stalins, the Caesars, and Alexander the Greats throughout history. Why should we assume there are no such men today with perverted lusts for power ? And if these men happen to be billionaires, is it not possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to seize power for themselves ?

Was Communism solely rooted and nourished in Russia, with no intervention from external influences ? Where were Lenin and Leon Trotsky, when the Czar, Nicholas 2 abdicated under pressure to do so by the Allies ? Lenin was in Switzerland, and had not yet boarded his famous sealed train, with 6 million dollars of gold which was arranged in great part by the Warburg banking family. Trotsky was in New York, and had not yet boarded his ship, with his war-chest of cash. The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause.

When the Warburg connection was exposed, Paul Warburg resigned his seat as a Director of the Federal Reserve.

John Schiff, the grandson of American financier Jacob Schiff revealed that "the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia".

Warburg/Schiff/Harriman/Milner/Rockefeller/Rothschild/Morgan---If people choose to look...in the Bolshevik Revolution, they will see many of the same old faces that were responsible for creating the Federal Reserve System, initiating the graduated income tax, setting up the tax-free foundations and pushing America into WWI.

No revolution can be successful without organization and money. "The downtrodden masses" usually provide little of the former and none of the latter. But affluent conspirators at the top can arrange for both.

What did these people possibly have to gain in financing the Russian Revolution ? What did they have to gain by keeping it alive and afloat, or, during the 1920's by pouring millions of dollars into what Lenin called his New Economic Program, thus saving the Soviets from collapse ? Why would these "capitalists" do all this ? If your "goal" is global conquest, you have to start somewhere. It may or may not have been coincidental, but Russia was the one major European country without a central bank. In Russia, for the first time, the "Communist" conspiracy gained a geographical homeland from which to launch assaults against the other nations of the world. The West now had an enemy.

Source : Gary Allen

Technology is the branch of knowledge which turns irreplaceable natural things into disposable dead things.

Much of the findings of Gary Allen, Jordan Christopher, and others, are researched and historically documented, which in many circles, would not be brushed off as "musings". Their work cannot be regarded as irrelevant to this topic. When I share the research of others, then they are duly acknowledged.

It would be a disservice to this topic if points of view from various angles are left under cover.

Is sarcasm relevant, and somehow adding value to the discussion ?

With apologies, allow me to repeat myself from an earlier post :

Are people in favour of the Bailout, provided that it is never termed "Socialism for the Rich"...Do people believe that the original amount of 700 billion dollars is enough of a remedy...Are people braced for possibility that the true figure will extend to 3 trillion dollars and beyond...Do people believe that after this money is printed and distributed, the jobs, as we knew them, will all come back ?

Technology is the branch of knowledge which turns irreplaceable natural things into disposable dead things.

History proves that the people who come out of economic turmoil the best are the people who already have made tons of money. History also proves that economic turnoil is always triggerd by those at the top.

The car companies will survive. They may sell to other car companies, or sell portions to other companies, but they will survive. Heaven knows the banks will be fine. It's the little people who always get hurt.

Giving free money to large corporations, as far as I'm concerned is downright criminal.

There is money and there is wealth. Know the difference. Our current money system is simply a means for the elite to manipulate OUR wealth. It is OURS. The sooner we wake up and realize this, the better for OUR economy.

Don't be fooled. The banks write the rules, not the government. And they write them in order to take OUR wealth without lifting a finger themselves.

ping wrote:Funny thing is all argo fans should support the cats and vise-versa. There not our enemy, Montreal is!!

Capitalism will not end because those enslaved by bankers revolted. Capitalism may end because the bankers’ insatiable greed destroyed the very mechanism by which bankers indebt others.

The sadder truth is that those enslaved by debt will still wish to remain the slaves of bankers, and pay the cost of their own slavery, by letting the bankers to continue to create money.

Capitalism’s fatal flaw is never apparent to those who choose not to question it's systemic nature. The very expansion of capitalism automatically sets in motion it's demise. This is because capitalism owns a perpetual need to expand. This "need" cannot be satisfied on any planet with finite resources. Some people understand this, while others deliberately choose not to.

Where does this leave the central bankers ? Some would rightfully suggest that they had better start looking for jobs. Unfortunately, as long as people believe bankers can solve the problems, then they will continue to be employed. But when people finally understand the role which bankers played in the current crisis, they and their minions in government may very well be indicted for their evil plundering.

Modern economies are littered with institutional deceit on a massive scale because the material rewards are so great, and therefore any attempt to ascertain the truth about money is not an easy task, and especially since this is not made easier by those who continuously benefit by such deceit.

The ruling class maintain their power because the working class does not understand this power dynamic in the very world in which they live, and thus, the economic control over the many, for the benefit of the few, has continued uninterrupted, and irrespective of the form which the economy takes.

The American people can no longer demand change from their elected officials, The American people must now implement change by enforcing the union, and the power of their original republic.

No person should be nominated for national public office unless that person signs an oath to expedite the immediate and orderly dissolution of the Federal Reserve. The control, issuance, and distribution of currency will be returned to the government of the people.

No person should be nominated to national public office unless that person signs an oath to strike down the amendments which egregiously granted human rights to corporations.

No person should be nominated to national public office unless that person signs an oath to cease the operations of the IRS, and allow each of the individual states to administer personal income taxation. Corporate taxation shall be the domain of the federal Treasury Department.

Technology is the branch of knowledge which turns irreplaceable natural things into disposable dead things.

AGENT-784 wrote:Capitalism will not end because those enslaved by bankers revolted. Capitalism may end because the bankers’ insatiable greed destroyed the very mechanism by which bankers indebt others.

I'll even add that capitalism is SUPPOSED to fall. The elite have designed it so. Once all the wealth is taken, the people ARE EXPECTED to revolt. This will be the excuse for the ruling class to use martial force against us. Capitalism is the means, not the end. Profit is the means, not the end.

This is where we're headed. The mathematics of debt in the reserve system are inevitable. Will this actually happen? Only if we let it. The future is wide open. The less we fear it, the more positive the outcome will be for all of us.

The ruling class maintain their power because the working class does not understand this power dynamic in the very world in which they live, and thus, the economic control over the many, for the benefit of the few, has continued uninterrupted, and irrespective of the form which the economy takes.

Perfectly true. There are FAR MORE of "us" than there are of "them", yet one way or another we all work for them.

We don't have to.

ping wrote:Funny thing is all argo fans should support the cats and vise-versa. There not our enemy, Montreal is!!

That said, there's something to be said for being "selfish". The best cared for person is one who looks after himself. It saves someone else the trouble, and we always receive relative to the effort we are willing to give.

Well Gerry,

That all depends upon the regulations that Banks and large investment firms were operating under. Ronnie Reagan amd Maggie Thatcher started this. Deregulating a number of industry's, transportation comes to mind, and loosend the regulatory rules governing the banks and the investment houses.

They are the ones "looking for a quick buck in the American subprime mortages" industry.

Clinton also has his claim to shame by not reigning in these "excesses of Capitalism". With Increased regulation.
Obama, is reigning in these "capatains if Captitalism" with increased regulation. I say it's about time Canada did to.

Now the SH&T has hit the fan, causing a world wide recession or worse. Combine that with the US fighting 2 wars. Afghanistan (where they should be) and Iraq, (where they shouldn't be) The American are talking about spending TRILLIONS of dollars to get itself out of this mess, caused by the very folks that you supported. In addition, the Harper government, has dropped "it's no deficit policy" and has gone into the Red. While in BC, soon to be Ex premier Canpbell has declared BC a "deficit zone", Again.

Capitalism works, if and only if, people have trust and confidence in the system. By recent events, peoeple are starting to lose that confidence.

Get your facts straight, please...Canada's financial institutions are considered the strongest in the world right now.

Correct, and the reason why, is that that in Canada, the BANKS are HIGHLY regulated, unlike their U.S. and world counterparts. Canada's banks didn't get exposed as much to the sub-prime Mortgage debacal. But that didn't stop the Harper Tories for guaranteeing 25 Billion of "mortgages" from Canada's banks.

All those, who say that government has no business regulating the "private sector" should read the list of "free enterprise" corporations that are receiving "government handouts" including GM and Chrysler, ING, Bank of America, they all got too greedy, and allowed the very system they support, to disintegrate before their eyes.

Now Obama, come to the rescue with TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All those who called for de-regulation, and "less Government in our lives" should at least blush with embarrassment as they pick up their "corporate welfare cheque" from the hard working, soon to be unemployed, taxpayer. THat means all who voted republican, or all that voted Conservative, in the past 20 years. This recession is what happens when one allows " very very very free markets" without regulation.

I hope you are all proud of yourselves, with your contribution to the recession.

That said, there's something to be said for being "selfish". The best cared for person is one who looks after himself. It saves someone else the trouble, and we always receive relative to the effort we are willing to give.

Well Gerry,

That all depends upon the regulations that Banks and large investment firms were operating under. Ronnie Reagan amd Maggie Thatcher started this. Deregulating a number of industry's, transportation comes to mind, and loosend the regulatory rules governing the banks and the investment houses.

They are the ones "looking for a quick buck in the American subprime mortages" industry.

Clinton also has his claim to shame by not reigning in these "excesses of Capitalism". With Increased regulation.
Obama, is reigning in these "capatains if Captitalism" with increased regulation. I say it's about time Canada did to.

Now the SH&T has hit the fan, causing a world wide recession or worse. Combine that with the US fighting 2 wars. Afghanistan (where they should be) and Iraq, (where they shouldn't be) The American are talking about spending TRILLIONS of dollars to get itself out of this mess, caused by the very folks that you supported. In addition, the Harper government, has dropped "it's no deficit policy" and has gone into the Red. While in BC, soon to be Ex premier Canpbell has declared BC a "deficit zone", Again.

Capitalism works, if and only if, people have trust and confidence in the system. By recent events, peoeple are starting to lose that confidence.

Get your facts straight, please...Canada's financial institutions are considered the strongest in the world right now.

Correct, and the reason why, is that that in Canada, the BANKS are HIGHLY regulated, unlike their U.S. and world counterparts. Canada's banks didn't get exposed as much to the sub-prime Mortgage debacal. But that didn't stop the Harper Tories for guaranteeing 25 Billion of "mortgages" from Canada's banks.

All those, who say that government has no business regulating the "private sector" should read the list of "free enterprise" corporations that are receiving "government handouts" including GM and Chrysler, ING, Bank of America, they all got too greedy, and allowed the very system they support, to disintegrate before their eyes.

Now Obama, come to the rescue with TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All those who called for de-regulation, and "less Government in our lives" should at least blush with embarrassment as they pick up their "corporate welfare cheque" from the hard working, soon to be unemployed, taxpayer. THat means all who voted republican, or all that voted Conservative, in the past 20 years. This recession is what happens when one allows " very very very free markets" without regulation.

I hope you are all proud of yourselves, with your contribution to the recession.

Yeah cause the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals didn't get rid of regulations - they were the ones in power for most of the last 20 years - drop the partisan *meadow muffin*.

Also, get your facts straight on the mortgages the government of Canada bought - they bought mortgages that were already insured by CMHC - meaning they are good mortgages - not the American crap that the US government bought. It wasn't a bailout as what has happened in the US. It was to ensure liquidity in the Canadian lending markets for people looking for loans right now. But you'd much spout on about nonsense as opposed to the actual facts...The funny thing is if the people you wanted in power in Canada were here, they'd be spending a helluva lot more than the Conservatives are...But keep on whining. Your left wingnut is showing.

That said, there's something to be said for being "selfish". The best cared for person is one who looks after himself. It saves someone else the trouble, and we always receive relative to the effort we are willing to give.

Well Gerry,

That all depends upon the regulations that Banks and large investment firms were operating under. Ronnie Reagan amd Maggie Thatcher started this. Deregulating a number of industry's, transportation comes to mind, and loosend the regulatory rules governing the banks and the investment houses.

They are the ones "looking for a quick buck in the American subprime mortages" industry.

Clinton also has his claim to shame by not reigning in these "excesses of Capitalism". With Increased regulation.
Obama, is reigning in these "capatains if Captitalism" with increased regulation. I say it's about time Canada did to.

Now the SH&T has hit the fan, causing a world wide recession or worse. Combine that with the US fighting 2 wars. Afghanistan (where they should be) and Iraq, (where they shouldn't be) The American are talking about spending TRILLIONS of dollars to get itself out of this mess, caused by the very folks that you supported. In addition, the Harper government, has dropped "it's no deficit policy" and has gone into the Red. While in BC, soon to be Ex premier Canpbell has declared BC a "deficit zone", Again.

Capitalism works, if and only if, people have trust and confidence in the system. By recent events, peoeple are starting to lose that confidence.

Get your facts straight, please...Canada's financial institutions are considered the strongest in the world right now.

Correct, and the reason why, is that that in Canada, the BANKS are HIGHLY regulated, unlike their U.S. and world counterparts. Canada's banks didn't get exposed as much to the sub-prime Mortgage debacal. But that didn't stop the Harper Tories for guaranteeing 25 Billion of "mortgages" from Canada's banks.

All those, who say that government has no business regulating the "private sector" should read the list of "free enterprise" corporations that are receiving "government handouts" including GM and Chrysler, ING, Bank of America, they all got too greedy, and allowed the very system they support, to disintegrate before their eyes.

Now Obama, come to the rescue with TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All those who called for de-regulation, and "less Government in our lives" should at least blush with embarrassment as they pick up their "corporate welfare cheque" from the hard working, soon to be unemployed, taxpayer. THat means all who voted republican, or all that voted Conservative, in the past 20 years. This recession is what happens when one allows " very very very free markets" without regulation.

I hope you are all proud of yourselves, with your contribution to the recession.

Yeah cause the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals didn't get rid of regulations - they were the ones in power for most of the last 20 years - drop the partisan *meadow muffin*.

Also, get your facts straight on the mortgages the government of Canada bought - they bought mortgages that were already insured by CMHC - meaning they are good mortgages - not the American crap that the US government bought. It wasn't a bailout as what has happened in the US. It was to ensure liquidity in the Canadian lending markets for people looking for loans right now. But you'd much spout on about nonsense as opposed to the actual facts...The funny thing is if the people you wanted in power in Canada were here, they'd be spending a helluva lot more than the Conservatives are...But keep on whining. Your left wingnut is showing.

Why buy them if they were insured? Why not let the insurance comapny cover the losses?

The reason why they bought then is because they were the "RIskiest" on the bankers books.

Ahh "Liquidity" I don't know about you, but, banks determine peoples "liquidity" in order for them to qualify for a loan. So far, most folks don't qualify.Bank CEO paycehques matter more.

As to the final point, Harper agreed to a 2% GDP stimulus package at the G20. He and the Liberals produced less, than that.

Isn't it ironic, the de-regulators, the Tories, who called for less government regulation and intervention, are now the ones calling for government intervention. Marx called that the "Inherrent contradiction of capaitalism".

What is needed is smart re-regulation, particularly of the financial sector, along the canadian model with it's tight regulations. So we avoid the sub-prime mortgages.

Terencius1 wrote:
Why buy them if they were insured? Why not let the insurance comapny cover the losses?

The reason why they bought then is because they were the "RIskiest" on the bankers books.

Ahh "Liquidity" I don't know about you, but, banks determine peoples "liquidity" in order for them to qualify for a loan. So far, most folks don't qualify.Bank CEO paycehques matter more.

So you really don't understand what went on at all do you. This post makes it pretty obvious. In case you didn't know, CMHC is a government corporation. For anyone who doesn't have 25%, they review the mortgage and approve and guarantee it for the bank before the mortgage is given out. They have strict criteria on what they'll accept based on the ability to pay. Meaning that these mortgages are not high risk - definitely nowhere near the risk of the ones that went belly up in the US. In fact, overall, the government expects to make money these mortgages by getting more in interest payments than they spent to purchase the loans.

As far as liquidity goes - what the hell are you talking about? The banks borrow money too and are required to maintain a certain level of external liquidity to assets ratio. They couldn't find anyone to borrow money from (since most other sources were in trouble due to the investment market and other issues). If you're a bank and other banks have bigger liquidity issues where are you supposed to borrow from to maintain your position? That's the liquidity issue - they simply were able to issue new loans as a result. So...is this slow enough for you?...the Government bought good, low-risk mortgages so that the banks could continue to lend money to people who wanted to buys houses, open businesses, expand businesses and the like. This is what they couldn't do because of current regulations and their inability to find liquidity for themselves due to things entirely out of their control.

And whatever the #### you said about liquidity? Looks like more trype that you can't prove. Something you just pulled out of your ass because you had nothing to go on...

Terencius1 wrote:As to the final point, Harper agreed to a 2% GDP stimulus package at the G20. He and the Liberals produced less, than that.

Isn't it ironic, the de-regulators, the Tories, who called for less government regulation and intervention, are now the ones calling for government intervention. Marx called that the "Inherrent contradiction of capaitalism".

What is needed is smart re-regulation, particularly of the financial sector, along the canadian model with it's tight regulations. So we avoid the sub-prime mortgages.

What are you talking about?? We don't have sub-prime mortgages and CMHC won't support/insure them meaning the banks here won't give them out to begin with. So you're arguing that we need to do something about something that's already inherently avoidable in Canada? And...you're complaining about someone else talking about government intervention?? Alrighty then...sounds like NDP double-speak to me...

You're all missing the point. Whether a mortgage is insured or not, high risk or not, all money issued by the bank of canada must be repaid to the bank of canada WITH INTEREST, whch is impossible if the bank of canada is the only institution permitted to issue money.

Add to that our fractional reserve system which allows banks to create 25 times more credit (or more) than the bank of canada can print, the government has no real control over the money, the BANKS do.

Add to that, no precious metal standard, all money is backed by a simple promise of the ministry of finance to repay all the money to the central bank of canada, means that every time money is printed, that one single promise gets divided smaller and smaller and smaller, causing inflation, inflation, inflation, on purpose, on purpose, on purpose.

This is why the economy at some point is mathematically inevitably doomed.

It's planned that way by the banks. Has been for decades, if not centuries. While we sit here and bicker over interest rates, industry bailouts and this mortgage, that mortgage, the bankers are grinning like cheshire cats. If this makes any sense to you at all and it bothers you. Start reading and clue in.

ping wrote:Funny thing is all argo fans should support the cats and vise-versa. There not our enemy, Montreal is!!

prairiedog wrote:You're all missing the point. Whether a mortgage is insured or not, high risk or not, all money issued by the bank of canada must be repaid to the bank of canada WITH INTEREST, whch is impossible if the bank of canada is the only institution permitted to issue money.

Add to that our fractional reserve system which allows banks to create 25 times more credit (or more) than the bank of canada can print, the government has no real control over the money, the BANKS do.

Add to that, no precious metal standard, all money is backed by a simple promise of the ministry of finance to repay all the money to the central bank of canada, means that every time money is printed, that one single promise gets divided smaller and smaller and smaller, causing inflation, inflation, inflation, on purpose, on purpose, on purpose.

This is why the economy at some point is mathematically inevitably doomed.

It's planned that way by the banks. Has been for decades, if not centuries. While we sit here and bicker over interest rates, industry bailouts and this mortgage, that mortgage, the bankers are grinning like cheshire cats. If this makes any sense to you at all and it bothers you. Start reading and clue in.

You've got a lot to say here, and it all sounds bogus to me, pdog. If you are so against a fractional reserve system, tell me what your alternative is. There is none. We would have no banking system, and no credit, and next to no capital for investment.

It seems to me that now that there is a major problem in our banking and capital system that a great many people almost gleefully predict it's total demise and are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The problems we currently experience are not created only by big banks and big business and government but also by the average consumer, average borrower, and average investor. It's going to take a change in attitude on the part of all of those to bring health to the system, but we still do need a system more or less in it's current form.